📅 Original date posted:2013-04-05
📝 Original message:On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:48:51 +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> However, youre somewhat right in the sense that its a self-defeating
> attack. If the pool owner went bad, he could pull it off once, but
> the
> act of doing so would leave a permanent record and many of the people
> mining on his pool would leave. As he doesnt own the actual mining
> hardware, he then wouldnt be able to do it again.
Unless all the miners are monitoring the work they do for their pools
and the actual miners that found the blocks noticed (unlikely) - the
only way anyone knows which pool did anything is the source IP that
first disseminates the new block. Also since it's unlikely that both of
the doublespend blocks would be found by the same end miner, neither of
them would know that the pool operator was responsible even if they were
monitoring their work.
There's nothing stopping the pool owner from channeling the doublespend
blocks through some other previously unknown IP, so I don't think they
would suffer any reputational damage from doing this repeatidly.
Robert
Robert McKay [ARCHIVE] /
npub1t6…he2py
2023-06-07 13:43:41
in reply to nevent1q…pqwn
Author Public Key
npub1t6suh64e65qzzjtthffl6sa3cagp6k9usnx4qev4jsjzf7xud8psdhe2pyPublished at
2023-06-07 13:43:41Event JSON
{
"id": "73d087cca096f0003830730812275c7ec98a5c3d05ee02f992b3a882c92e379e",
"pubkey": "5ea1cbeab9d50021496bba53fd43b1c7501d58bc84cd506595942424f8dc69c3",
"created_at": 1686138221,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6fb578e911dca94b45942e0389b5d912f7dd77b06d2b79ad6f70d972966cf14a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"db860a30442f46e68634e55b99e7ee76c3b5ae65cb9286393c9337280388f91e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a4adaa5c208f197abdbd674b148ea80e759ea885dfaccc508601672a583a62c8"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-04-05\n📝 Original message:On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:48:51 +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e However, youre somewhat right in the sense that its a self-defeating\n\u003e attack. If the pool owner went bad, he could pull it off once, but \n\u003e the\n\u003e act of doing so would leave a permanent record and many of the people\n\u003e mining on his pool would leave. As he doesnt own the actual mining\n\u003e hardware, he then wouldnt be able to do it again.\n\nUnless all the miners are monitoring the work they do for their pools \nand the actual miners that found the blocks noticed (unlikely) - the \nonly way anyone knows which pool did anything is the source IP that \nfirst disseminates the new block. Also since it's unlikely that both of \nthe doublespend blocks would be found by the same end miner, neither of \nthem would know that the pool operator was responsible even if they were \nmonitoring their work.\n\nThere's nothing stopping the pool owner from channeling the doublespend \nblocks through some other previously unknown IP, so I don't think they \nwould suffer any reputational damage from doing this repeatidly.\n\nRobert",
"sig": "0007467266f7db34d559aa7ebc35985e0643d1fa90dfb12cecc7f01daab0d68af3f389a64750a72c6b76f63b96fb75abcc64a78dd81c4948b7add5b68ce0a7de"
}